Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Langone

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JodyB _talk 15:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Langone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:BIO. Sources and publications are either passing references or directly associated with the article subject. Tgeairn (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looking through online articles he seems to pass the Notability criteria -(he has had books published and articles in peer reviewed journals and been a conference speaker and organizer in the US and Europe.Cathar66 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that those things are not the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. The journal articles and speaking have been very closely related to him (not independent), and the book(s) do not rise to the criteria of "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". --Tgeairn (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't pass the criteria for notability as an academic or author. Not a distinguished professor, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like him or not, another oft-cited (and more than a few confute the "closely related to him" allegation) scholar well-known to scholarly as well as media audiences. Should never have been nominated. • Astynax ^talk 09:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the GNG as a notable figure in the anti-cult movement. Miniapolis 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After ten years, the article itself seems pretty thin on information about him. Seems to be yet another article created to give spurious prominence to anti-cult propagandists. DaveApter (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.